At 3:35 PM +0000 12/12/03, Christopher Walker wrote:
>My small(ish) quibble: Are there _accurate_ comprehensions of reality
>(though I like the s in 'comprehensions')? One possible effect on the reader
>is that s/he realises, however briefly, someone else's 'truth'.
Hi Christopher
Glad it made sense! My mind has imploded recently, too much of
everything, and not only alcohol.
Perhaps I ought to have pluralised "reality" as well.
It seems to me that there are more or less acurate representations,
but none, given that language can't be anything but language, which
can wholly comprehend any given reality. I suppose Joyce gave it a
good try. There are representations which strike you as untruthful
for instance and consequently either irritating or catalysts of
despair (I am thinking say of political spin and its awful
consequences, or tv news, or op-ed pieces which seem to be
consciously dishonest, so obviously a different kind of alienation
from the one you were thinking of). I have sometimes wondered
whether being surrounded by cynically mendacious representations -
"Because I'm worth it", say (Loreal ads) or "War is peace" or those
irritating telecommunications advertisements full of idyllic clips of
the natural world &c might account for the WHO's projection that 20
per cent of the human race is going to suffer from mental illness in
a few years. At this point comedy and poetry seem to me aspects of
mental health, since either can be a way of recognising cruel - or
perhaps more difficult - joyous truths.
That possible opening of perception is what matters, I think. And
Rebecca's point about emotional communication, in which she (sorry
Rebecca for talking of you in the third person) sounds very much like
Rukeyser in The Life of Poetry talking about the uses of poetry.
Best
A
--
Alison Croggon
Blog
http://alisoncroggon.blogspot.com
Editor, Masthead
http://au.geocities.com/masthead_2/
Home page
http://www.users.bigpond.com/acroggon/
|